Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Wednesday December 11, 2013 @12:05PM
from the someone's-going-to-jail dept.

cold fjord writes "Yahoo reports, 'A California man was arrested on Tuesday on accusations he ran a 'revenge porn' website, one that featured nude pictures of women often posted by jilted or angry ex-lovers ... The San Diego arrest, the latest action by the state to crack down on such websites, comes after California Governor Jerry Brown signed a first-in-the-nation law in October specifically targeting revenge porn. The law defines revenge porn as the posting of private, explicit photos of other people on the Internet to humiliate them. But authorities did not charge 27-year-old Kevin Bollaert under that law, because it is geared to those who post the incriminating pictures and not those who run websites that feature them .... Bollaert's site, which is no longer operational, had featured over 10,000 sexually explicit photos, and he charged women up to $350 each to remove their photos, officials said. ... Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission, and under anti-extortion legislation, according to court documents. Unlike many other revenge porn websites, Bollaert's site had required users post the photo subject's full name, location, age and a link to the person's Facebook profile, the Attorney General's Office said in a statement.'"

He should turn over all of his submission records, in essence handing over the information on hundreds of men who could be charged for posting the photos. They would probably offer him quite the plea deal if he were to do this.

One of the charges he is being slapped with is extortion. Because, according to the article, he was charging women $350 to remove the images. That is the very definition of extortion as the women had to pay to remove the images.

It is a wonder he isn't being slapped with federal charges of extortion.

The other charge is identity theft. According to the CA laws: He was posting information about these women without their explicit consent. That breaks the ID Theft law there.

That is not to say he will not be forced to turn over the information of all the idiots who posted the nudes. They may still get that info with or without his help. However, he certainly won't get a plea deal out of it if he cooperates because he is being charged with more serious, unrelated issues that the CA Anti-Revenge Porn law doesn't cover.

Also, if this is the person I'm thinking about, and if my memory is correct, at least one of his victims claims that he harassed and threatened her and her family, and that one of his associates cracked into women's personal computers/accounts and stole many of the photos that were posted.

So assuming this is the same person, it's a wonder he hasn't been charged with harassment, assault, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, too.

It is a wonder he isn't being slapped with federal charges of extortion.

Not really. California has a long and inglorious history of trying to turn itself into its own country -- second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: "This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California." They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison. As if you needed more proof California's justice system was completely off the rails than them creating laws inspired by sports games.

Not really. California has a long and inglorious history of trying to turn itself into its own country -- second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: "This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California." They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison....

Note that both the "causes cancer" and "three strikes" were voter approved initiatives (Prop 65 (passed with 63%) and Prop 36 (passed with 61%) respectively), not something slipped through the legislature.

You cannot expect sound judgement from a population that averages a 5th grade reading comprehension and nearly 7% believe that lizard people secretly control the government... or aren't sure. I'm all for democracy -- when the general population is educated. California is one of the most populated states in the country, and also one of the least-educated overall. The results are, well... exactly as described.

The people are morons. Why do you think the electoral college was created to begin with? Direct demo

"... second only to Texas in it's zest for trying to co-opt, twist, and otherwise manipulate federal law. See also: 'This product is known to cause cancer in the State of California.'"

Don't misunderstand me; I am no great fan of the State of California. But if any Federal agency deserves to get its ass kicked up to its vocal chords, it's the FDA. Although I admit that the list has now grown rather large.

They also have the highly controversial three strikes law that results in infinite prison.

On this one, though, I would go further: it's not "controversial" at all. It's just plain bad, and everybody but politicians seem to know it.

"... a prison sentence in excess of what I would get if I poured gasoline on this man and set him on fire for posting a naked picture of me on his website, I do not feel is fair."

Again, agreed. He should definitely be dealt with harshly for his "identity theft" (if that's what you can honestly call it... I'd call it privacy v

Furthermore, how did he think this episode would end? I didnt RTFA (ofcourse, this is still Slashdot) but I wager he couldnt have made too much money extorting before the the Feds started tracking him. Stupid stupid stupid criminals.

"He's also not guilty of 'identity theft' unless he actually tried to impersonate those women using their data."

Yeah, that's a little weird, isn't it?

My theory is that they want to charge him for egregiously violating the privacy of those people, but because corporations have managed to weaken privacy laws, they had to dream up something else to charge him with.

But this is just more proof that we do, indeed, need strong privacy laws.

Certainly he could argue that. It's just that no one with a modicum of ethics will buy his explanation. They will be viewing what he did in the context of the site, not some abstract unrelated thought bubble.

There is a big difference between what they did and what he did. What they did is, generally, a huge breech of trust but.... that doesn't mean it is or even should be illegal. When it comes to personal relationships, sometimes the state really should say "My name is paul, this shit is between you all".

In the end, whether a particular upload would be an infringement or not would depend on context. I know women who have posted nude pictures of themselves or let others post pictures of them online. So you can't really just blanket assume its a violation.

How about situations where a man posts pictures online of his wife claiming they are swingers looking for more partners. We can't assume its with or without her knowledge out of hand, it could be either. she could easily turn around in a divorce and claim to have not known.

This isn't even academic, I KNOW people who have had problems like this where a divorce got messy and one side tried to use events out of context. Seriously I had a friend tell me his wife was really kinky and wanted him to have her sign a "slave contract" (not unusual in certain circles)....then a year later is telling me how she gave the contract to her lawyer to use as proof that he was really controlling.

If that was the worst of the things I have seen people in fights with their ex do, that would be one thing. One friend of mine had to go through all sorts of hell fighting his ex over custody; even having to deal with her making false abuse claims with DSS. (we are still waiting to see the hammer drop on her for that since DSS has closed the case saying there was no merit to the claims)

Relationships are messy business. Right or wrong, its usually best to stay out of them whenever possible. Unless there is "welfare of a child" involved (which admittedly can be the messiest) its best to just stay out and tell people do deal.

Yet it does seem like there should be some recourse here, maybe a civil offence for people to use after other means of dealing with it break down? I dunno, but it should be somewhat targeted to prevent abuse of the statute.

Assuming its illegal.
There is a big difference between what they did and what he did. What they did is, generally, a huge breech of trust but.... that doesn't mean it is or even should be illegal. When it comes to personal relationships, sometimes the state really should say "My name is paul, this shit is between you all".

It's illegal. The summary even suggests which law was recently signed by the governor to make it illegal.

He should turn over all of his submission records, in essence handing over the information on hundreds of men who could be charged for posting the photos. They would probably offer him quite the plea deal if he were to do this.

The title is "California Man Arrested for Running 'Revenge Porn' Website." What is the meaningful semantic distinction that makes the use of "for it" improper here? He was arrested for activities core to the running of the site: privacy violations (the images hosted on the site) and blackmail (a major revenue source for the site). Just because he wasn't arrested for using the site doesn't mean that we wasn't arrested for running the site.

Just hosting a revenge porn site is legal. California even said as much. His actions toward the people in the images is what's gotten him in trouble. He blackmailed them, and improperly posted personal information about them, in some cases leading to them being identified and harrassed by others who saw the images. If he'd done nothing but host a site that held revenge porn images, and encouraged others to upload them, he wouldn't have been arrested (At least not for any of the charges he was charged with). So running a "revenge porn" site was irrelevant to the issue here.

You know, back in the Bush administration, before Snowden released documents proving they were doing it, the ESA and ACLU did just that, and the Supreme court said "Fuck off, you can't prove anything, so we won't let you get evidence that would help."

I'm pretty sure there's another lawsuit now, but it hasn't gotten that high.

" Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission "

In other words, he's been charged with doing what every person, business, and the government itself does in the US/world. This is part of the lawmakers passing meaningless and opportunistic laws just to do so. Either enforce it on everybody and face the consequences or repeal it. Anything else is just government abuse and prosecutorial miscondu

That's not what the NSA did, and US legal code applies to US citizens, not foreign ones. Also, if the NSA is operating within boundaries set by other laws like the PATRIOT Act, which they were, then they're in the clear.

Blame the law and the politicians for poor oversight, the NSA is just a bureaucracy told to go do something without sufficient guidelines and oversight.

Several problems with this.

First, the NSA has swept up plenty of information about US citizens, e.g. in requesting phone records in bulk, and we only have their word that they're only interested in foreigners. Not that that legally justifies sweeping up people you're not allowed to look at without a warrant.

Second, James Sensenbrenner, the Republican main sponsor of the PATRIOT Act, has said that the NSA is far overreaching its authorization under the Act. It's very possible that the agency's interpretati

Which is slightly ironic, because there are folks who do exactly the same thing with photos from bookings when you are arrested. He may end up on the page of one of those blackmailers. Are the cops going after them as well?

To my understanding, booking photos are technically public record except in cases where the records have been sealed by the courts. Private Citizen A posting a audio/visual recording of Private Citizen B without B's permission is a legally-distinct matter.

Actually I question if either is really blackmail, but if one is, then both seem to be to me.

Here is why: blackmail is generally about revealing information that is secret. As was pointed out in an objection to the concept by some libertarians: it is legal to gossip or to threaten to release secrets; it is only illegal to offer to not release them for some benefit.

The thing is, this is not about release of public info, this is about continued availability. The info was already made public, this is "pay me and I will hide it"; which isn't really blackmail is it? However the point is: Its blackmail even if the threatened action is otherwise legal (though this likely varies from place to place, wikipedia has some good examples of how it differs).

So.... it seems to me if "pay me and I hide this embarrassing info, which is already published now" is blackmail, then it is blackmail whether its nude photos or public court documents.

Where that unfortunately seems to fall down is that public court records are otherwise public. They are not a secret.

Private photos are otherwise private and considered to be a secret. If said photos are published far and wide then perhaps there is a claim to be made that they are not secret, but the claim that they are not secret because one site published them is a bit of circular reasoning.

I.e. The argument that it is illegal to publish secret information, but once published the information is no longer secret by definition, so you can never be guilty of publishing secret information, does not quite follow.

Not a fan of mugshot sites, mainly because only an absolute douchebag would ever run something like that.

That's not true, at least under US law. The difference between the mugshot sites and this one is one of copyright. For mugshots, being part of the public record, the copyright falls into the public domain. For intimate images of your significant other, the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Unless the photo was taken without concent (i.e. hidden bathroom camera, etc) the subject of the photo has very little recourse in how they are actually used. Basically anything short of advertising

sure but that isn't the argument I made. I was pointing out that depending on the definition of blackmail locally, it may or may not require that the threatened action be otherwise illegal. That is, it may be legal to release the secret, in and of itself, but not to demand payment to not do it.

Of course, in this case, it seems it may have been illegal to release.

Until very recently, though, booking photos were funcitonally private. It took digital photography combined with modern record keeping systems for them to be widely available, and even now you can't simply browse the police department's web site (at least here in Minneapolis) and grab the photos. You have to go down to the department to get a copy, and it wouldn't surprise me if the copy you get is a printout.

So even though booking photos have a legal status as public informaiton, the idea of running a

Bollaert's site, which is no longer operational, had featured over 10,000 sexually explicit photos, and he charged women up to $350 each to remove their photos, officials said

So basically he was running an extortion racket?

At the end of the day, you're posting intimate pictures of someone without their permission and without a model release, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for this guy. If the rest of the porn industry needs to keep model releases and the like on file, why wouldn't he?

. . ..the older brothers and fathers of the young ladies "exposed" on the website would stop by and have a "chat" with the guy. The site would then go offline very soon thereafter. . . either because he was sufficiently scared, or he was laid up in the hospital, and couldn't pay the hosting bill. . .

And then it would turn out the sister/daughter voluntarily posed for the pictures, was paid as a professional model, and signed a release. But claimed it was something else when her brother/father turned out to subscribe to the site and found the pics.

Then, the young lady, and the brother/father would all go to prison, and everything they own auctioned off and the money given to their victim.

There's a reason civilized people prefer a rule of law to blood feud justice.

Being allowed to take a picture and redistributing it is two totally different things....

Actually, under US law they are not in most circumstances. If I take your photo, even in a private setting (assuming the circumstances under which I'm taking it are legal), I own the copyright to that photograph and you have very, very little control over how I choose to use it. I can sell it, post it online, put it in a coffee table book, or have it displayed in a public exhibit all without your consent. The only time I need your consent is if I use it in a way that would imply that you, as a person, are

You are off base. All states have varying flavors of privacy laws, and most have laws regarding the commercial exploitation of a person's image (and California certainly does). Things can be damned fuzzy, sometimes. An art gallery show doesn't require a model release, but if prints are being sold, it's best to have one, for instance.

Privacy is less fuzzy, generally. If there's an expectation of privacy, and the photo itself, or the events depicted are not newsworthy, generally speaking, it's a privacy viola

You are off base. All states have varying flavors of privacy laws, and most have laws regarding the commercial exploitation of a person's image (and California certainly does). Things can be damned fuzzy, sometimes. An art gallery show doesn't require a model release, but if prints are being sold, it's best to have one, for instance.

It is always good to have one but there is no legal requirement for one. Street photography is a good example of this. There is also the case in NYC recently of a photographer photographing the tenants across the street through their open windows, exibiting and selling prints. The residents had no real legal recourse. Laws like those in California only kick in when the image is used to promote or endorse another product. If the image, itself, is the product, that does not trigger the law.

Privacy is less fuzzy, generally. If there's an expectation of privacy, and the photo itself, or the events depicted are not newsworthy, generally speaking, it's a privacy violation to publish the photos. That's a civil matter, but when you demand money to not commit a civil privacy violation, that's criminal extortion (as has been charged in this case).

Also not true under most US law. Once you concent to being photographed, you give up most privacy related rights for that instance. This is the difference between a hidden camera pic (bathroom stalls, for example) and a photo you allow your SO to take. Newsworthy, again, is a matter of copyright, not privacy, law. If you look at the court cases around some of the sex tape releases (where the photographer was not in question and both parties had proportial access to legal representation) it's pretty clear.

This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress, is guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to that same punishment.

Note that is specifically calls out that the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private. This is their attempt to create an implied agreement on the use of the image, one that does not exist under current law.

I, again, want to be clear that I would love to see this guy hang, he deserves it. I just question whether or not he actually broke the law the way they are currently written, and to make people aware that their beli

Well, slashdot, home of more then a single person and thus opinions on any particular topic vary by poster and thus a single thread or issue can have multiple mutually exclusive views since they were posted by different people.

It will be interesting to see if the new revenge porn law stands up in court. This does not appear to be a charge under that law, but a violation of extortion laws. Or of California identity theft law, if TFS is to be believed.

If I was in a bathroom you have the pressumption of privacy which is why you went in there in the first place. If I was taking a leak on the 5th green at the local golf course and you took a picture obviously not. If you were a friend and I posed for a picture taking a leak I also don't have a pressumption of privacy. That is why I asked were the pictures taken legally or not.

Hello, good evening, and welcome to 'Blackmail'! And to start tonight's program, we go to Preston in Lancashire, and Mrs Betty Teal!Hello, Mrs Teal!Now this is for £15 and it's to stop us revealing the name of your lover in Bolton.So Mrs Teal...if you send us £15 by return post, please, and your husband Trevor, and your lovely children, Diane, Janice and Juliet need never know the name of your lover in Bolton.

There are lots of them out there. I had a speeding ticket once. So there is a site that lists me as a criminal. It shows up near the top of the list in Google (despite nobody on the planet linking to that page, and no hits on it as far as I can tell). So they SEO the hell out of it to try to smear people's name. But I "could" pay them to take down the page. I'd link to it, but it identifies me more that I like. The "charge" was dismissed, but the ticket still shows up as being given, my two court dat

If TFS is correct, then the "identity theft" and anti-blackmail statutes would apply to a mugshot site as well -- if anyone wanted to prosecute them. But, increasingly, criminal law is applied selectively and rather capriciously. I would not expect the legislature or law enforcement to take action that could be construed as affirming the presumption of innocence or the rights of the accused.

That's not true, or at least it's not legally clear. The photo itself is made by a government agency which automatically makes it public domain, however the subject is a private citizen so it runs afoul of privacy laws which can vary from state to state.

That the person has been charged with a crime is newsworthy in and of itself. That brings the first amendment in to play. To say the web sites cannot post the photos is, legally, the same as saying the New York Times cannot publish the name of the defendant.

This is a bit different though, as it appears the pictures are made by a private person, not a government agency, so the ownership of the photo is retained by the individual who took the shot. Which begs an interesting IP question; if it's a nude shot of a woman taken by her boyfriend, does he own the copyright of the picture, and is therefore legally allowed to publish it if he chooses to do so?

The copyright goes to the person who made the photograph. There are no copyright issues there. There are privacy issues, and right to commercially exploit one's own image issues, both of which are pretty strongly protected in many states.

That the person has been charged with a crime is newsworthy in and of itself. That brings the first amendment in to play.

At least in my country, the right to fundamental justice can trump the freedom of expression (including freedom of the press) right. You just have to convince a judge that publishing certain information can jeopardize your right to a fair trial, eg tainting a jury. Of course the prosecution and other interested parties such as the newspapers lawyers can argue the opposite and after the trial they're usually free to publish, especially in the case of a conviction.

To say the web sites cannot post the photos is, legally, the same as saying the New York Times cannot publish the name of the defendant.

I am also NAL, but ownership of pictures is a little more involved than that, I'm pretty sure. Mugshots are already public, hence the mugshot photo sites remaining up. Ownership of pictures depends on the history of the picture. If you take, say, a dick shot of yourself, and send it to your girlfriend, she now legally owns the picture. At least in many states. Which is why the revenge porn laws, aimed at the people posting the photos, were passed, because otherwise posting pictures of your ex that you have

Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.

What's stupid, is asshats like Kevin Bollaert and others like him slut-shaming women for the lulz, and then profiting via blackmail. When that shit happens, then women don't feel safe in sending nudie pics to men they trust, and we don't get to see them. So I damn well hope they throw the book at him, and I damn well hope we can reverse this trend, because I'd personally like to receive more nudie pics from happy, well-adjusted women with roaring sex drives and a desire for a little exhibitionistic titillation.

Good luck with that, this [go.com] is all the respect that had the NSA workers for the US soldiers in afganistan and their wives/girlfriends in 2008, maybe thet will respect you instead. And it could get much [globalresearch.ca] worse [go.com]

Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.

What's stupid, is asshats like Kevin Bollaert and others like him slut-shaming women for the lulz, and then profiting via blackmail. When that shit happens, then women don't feel safe in sending nudie pics to men they trust, and we don't get to see them. So I damn well hope they throw the book at him, and I damn well hope we can reverse this trend, because I'd personally like to receive more nudie pics from happy, well-adjusted women with roaring sex drives and a desire for a little exhibitionistic titillation.

Self-righteous blustering on behalf of sexual freedom aside, there are arguments to be made firstly that a law criminalizing posting revenge porn is a paternalistic abomination, and secondly that the fact the law happens to benefit you personally is irrelevant to whether the law is justified.

The state does make laws that protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Thus we have laws against children buying alcohol and cigarettes, and we treat juvenile offenders differently from adults. We also

No, most laws are not there to protect the weak. Some are, yes, but one of the primary purposes of law is to enable trust between individuals. This is what makes society function. If I own a house and hire carpenters to work on it, I can leave them working in the house while I go out, to a great extent because laws ensure that stealing from me is illegal. You could say that, well, you are a rational adult, and if you leave them there by themselves you can suit yourself if they nab stuff -- it's not society'

It is purest sophistry to suggest that laws against theft exist to protect one against the consequences of his decision to put himself in a situation where theft from him would be possible. One might take every conceivable precaution against theft and still find himself a victim of theft. Even were everyone to be so prudent, laws against theft would still be necessary in order to dissuade potential thieves from deciding to take up the profession. Conversely, the revenge-porn law, insofar as it covers incide

That one cannot conceive of a benefit for some kind of behavior is not grounds for making it illegal.

Neither is it an argument for keeping it legal, which was my point. In a cost-benefit analysis, what is the benefit of keeping it legal as opposed to the obvious costs?

One must weigh as well the detriments, in this case the consequences of proclaiming women to be in need of protections generally reserved for those judged mentally incompetent.

Huh? What are you implying here? That if someone else publishes embarrassing material on you, that means you were mentally incompetent? Or that if you trust someone who later betrays you, you are also mentally incompetent? Or that if there even exists embarrassing pictures of you somewhere, you are mentally incompetent?

Laws are there to keep us acting civilized, in theory. In practice they keep most people acting civilized only when they fear being caught. Trust can't be based on the idea that the other person fears being caught. If the only motivation is fear of being caught, then as soon as they are sure they won't be caught, or as soon as they don't fear the consequences (or the result is greater than the consequence), they will do the action they wish to do.

You are oversimplifying human psychology. For one thing, the laws have a normative function apart from the practical cost/benefit equation of getting caught, and that also affects human behaviour. As are you the situation with the carpenters; someone might walk in on them, or I might have a camera, the effect of which is much greater when I have the support of the state to prosecute them if they steal.

I can recommend you to read Liars and Outliers [amazon.com], by Bruce Schneier, for an extensive treatment of how trust

The thing about the word 'slut' is that it's not *always* used to offend. Like with "nigger", there is a trend in the western world for women to own the word in a similar fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut_walk [wikipedia.org]. Just saying there is more to this than just the surface.

So call them a "cheater", "liar", whatever? And before you do even that, you should probably think about whether doing so is going to do anybody any good or just add to the world's unhappiness.

Even if you feel the person needs to be called out, "slut" is a bad choice of name for the case you describe, because it fundamentally means "person who has more sex than I think they should", or maybe "person who has sex with more people than I think they should", not "person who breaks promises".

That's not going to happen.. ever. Sorry, it's just human nature. Sometimes breakups are messy, people get emotional and emotion + human = stupid. Give those pic out and eventually one will get posted online somewhere. That's life.

Lucky for you I don't think angry ex's posting the pics is the underlying trend. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some girls used to give their guys polaroids but I doubt that was ever anywhere near as common as today's sexting. Technology has made it easier to share and it has m

Very few things in life are worth challenging the weight of reality behind the GIFT theory... freely-given private pictures of boobies from happy female friends and lovers are one of those things. This is WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

For deeper comentary, this was on On The Media last week (http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/dec/). My favorite part is when Bollaert said he wouldn't post pics of his Mom or sister because that was gross....

On the Media interviewed Hunter Moore, a different douchebag. Like Bollaert, Hunter Moore ran a revenge porn site, but Moore (apparently) honored removal requests.... then he took down his entire site.

I have an acquaintance that was getting ready to engage in what she thought was a private act with a few 'friends'. As she was getting started, one of them concealed and activated a camera. The resulting pictures now live in perpetuity on the Internet (initially Yahoo groups, but reposted from time to time on 4chan).

Not all pictures are taken with a subject's permission. And some are, but can be misappropriated by other than the intended recipient (someone picks up a phone and uploads th

In that situation, the stupidity was engaging in a sexual act with people she didn't know well enough to realize one of them would hide a camera, and in not being aware enough of her surroundings to realize someone was putting/had put up a camera.

Taking pictures and never expecting them to be seen is also stupidity. If you don't want people seeing pictures... don't take them. Don't put yourself into situations where pictures you don't want being seen, can be taken without your knowledge.

I don't have a wife, as gay marriage and polygamy aren't legal in my state. But I teach my daughter to not be so stupid as to put herself into situations where she can be raped and there is no one around to help her. It has worked so far.